2. Upgrade to PhD

a. Centre for Ecology and Conservation (previously known as Biosciences-Cornwall) excluding BBSRC SWBio DTP funded students

CEC students funded by BBSRC SWBio DTP should please refer to section b. below

Summary: Research students studying to obtain a PhD are initially registered for the MPhil and upgrade to PhD in their first year of study. Upgrade involves completion of an upgrade report and successful discussion of your work in a verbal examination (viva) with an Upgrade Committee. The Upgrade Committee will normally comprise an independent assessor, usually from the CEC, and a Deputy Director of Postgraduate Research. For Postgraduate Researchers (PGRs) the upgrade must be completed and passed within 12 months of full-time study (pro-rata for part-time students). The process is started at 9 months (pro-rata for part-time students) to ensure it is completed in time.

Purpose and general expectations: This process is intended to establish whether the student is making sufficient progress towards a PhD, and to provide constructive feedback on project plans and progress. The expectation is that the vast majority of students will be successfully "upgraded" to a PhD.

More specifically the TQA outlines that the purpose of the upgrade is to:

Confirm that the student is making satisfactory progress;

Confirm that there is evidence that the student is able to produce work of doctoral quality;

Act as a structural milestone within the student's research journey;

Provide the student with formal feedback on their work, and a developmental opportunity in the form of a viva;

Provide an opportunity for a detailed review of the research project and plan to take place from experts independent of the supervisory team.

The upgrade process is intended to be a constructure process to help you develop and improve your thesis and professional skills, rather than to simply sit in judgement. The viva provides an opportunity for you to present, talk about and defend your work to an academic panel, in preparation for your viva voce once you have submitted your thesis.

Outline of key events: A 9-month upgrade requiring a 3000-5000 word report outlining the thesis title, background, aims, provisional chapter outlines (including methods and analysis strategy for each) and expected timeline followed by a viva voce with an academic panel. Successful completion of the process within 12 months. Supervisors should provide you with feedback on the report before you submit it.

There is a 'follow-up' meeting (also known as the Review Presentation) 9-10 months after the Upgrade Viva in the form of a discussion with members of the Upgrade Committee, or relevant nominees. The purpose of this follow-up meeting is to provide another formal point of contact, to check things are 'on-track', and to provide an opportunity to reflect on any issues or successes that might have arisen since the Upgrade Viva. This follow-up meeting will normally take place around 18-20 months into your studies.

Specific requirements: The 3000-5000 word upgrade report should contain the following components, and you must use the template upgrade report available here, Students Upgrade Template CEC 2024-25, and outlined below:

AI Statement - Please see the Postgraduate Research Handbook, TQA Chapter 9, section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2, and include the appropriate AI statement from the options provided.

Background - Describe the problem/phenomenon being studied. Include a review of past literature on the topic including both theory and empirical findings to put your work into the context of the previous research in your specific field. Include citations to previous literature.

Aims - State the aim(s) of the project, and how this relates to the above background (e.g., it follows on from X, or fills a gap between Y and Z, or tests theory A in a new population B.)

Chapter outlines - For each planned data chapter, provide a working title, research question, hypotheses/predictions, data required, proposed methods for data collection, and analysis strategy (e.g., statistical tests to be used). You are not committed to this plan - PhD projects often change - but provide as much detail as possible. For non-data chapters (e.g., literature reviews, models), adapt the outline as appropriate. You don't need to provide outlines of the general introduction of discussion of your thesis, although you do need to provide some general background information (see above).

Expected timeline - Provide a table or Gantt chart stating when you expect key milestones to be complete for each chapter, e.g., data collection, analysis, writing up. Discuss this timeline with your supervisor and ensure that you are working towards your personal target submission date (for funded students this should be the end of your funding period). For most PhD students this is 3 or 3.5 years of full-time study (but for some programmes, e.g., BBSRC SWBio, it is 4 years of full-time study).

References - Provide a list of references in standard format (e.g., Harvard or Vancouver style). This does not count towards the word limit of the report.

Presentation: In addition, for your viva you should prepare a short (5-10 minutes at most) Powerpoint presentation (of no more than 5 slides) that gives a brief overview of your project background and aims. This may include a list of proposed chapters.

Assessment: Within 4 weeks of submission of the upgrade report the student will be required to attend an upgrade viva. The Upgrade Committee will consist of two academics, neither of whom should be (or have been) a supervisor of the student and will ordinarily consist of a) one assessor with specialist expertise in the subject (i.e., be a member of the same academic group as the student), nominated by the supervisor and b) a Deputy Director of PGR (DDPGR).

The exact format of the viva is at the discretion of the assessors, but typically the student will be asked to start with a brief summary presentation of their report, which will be followed by an indepth discussion with the panel.

The panel will be asked to comment of the quality of the written report, including on:

Context/background to the research
Originality and scope of project to contribute new knowledge
Level of critical analysis and understanding conveyed
Capacity of proposed methods to address the research questions
Literary standard and capacity to communicate effectively in English
Whether (future) work is of sufficient scope/standard to be publishable?

In addition, consideration will be given to the training completed (with reference to the Training Needs Analysis) and performance in the viva. This might include highlights/things that were explained especially well in the viva in addition to identifying areas of improvement for the future.

At the first attempt at upgrade, the following outcomes are available:

a. Pass;

b. Require completion of minor amendments within 2 months (or the pro-rata equivalent for part-time registration);

c. Refer for a second attempt within 3 months (or the pro-rata equivalent for part-time registration) and normally recommend initiation or progression of a case under 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement: Code of Good Practice' (see the Postgraduate Research Handbook, Chapter 15).

For students who require a second attempt at upgrade, the outcomes can be found in the Postgraduate Research Handbook, TQA Chapter 9, section 8.2.

b. Centre for Ecology and Conservation (previously known as Biosciences-Cornwall) BBSRC SWBio DTP funded students only

Summary: CEC PGR students funded under the BBSRC SWBio Doctoral Training programme are initially registered for the MPhil. The upgrade to PhD occurs upon successful completion of the first year of the DTP programme. Upgrade involves completion of an upgrade report and successful discussion of your work in a verbal examination (viva) with an Upgrade Committee. The Upgrade Committee will normally comprise an independent assessor, usually from the CEC, and a Deputy Director of Postgraduate Research.

More specifically the TQA outlines that the purpose of the upgrade is to:

Confirm that the student is making satisfactory progress;

Confirm that there is evidence that the student is able to produce work of doctoral quality;

Act as a structural milestone within the student's research journey;

Provide the student with formal feedback on their work, and a developmental opportunity in the form of a viva;

Provide an opportunity for a detailed review of the research project and plan to take place from experts independent of the supervisory team.

Outline of key events: An upgrade at the point of the successful completion of the first year of the DTP programme, requiring a 1500-3000 word report outlining the thesis title, background, aims, provisional chapter outlines (including methods and analysis strategy for each) and expected timeline followed by a viva voce with an academic panel. Supervisors should provide you with feedback on the report before you submit it.

Specific requirements: The 1500-3000 word upgrade report should contain the following components, and you must use the template upgrade report available here, Students Upgrade Template CEC SWBio Aug 24, and outlined below:

AI Statement - Please see the Postgraduate Research Handbook, TQA Chapter 9, section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2, and include the appropriate AI statement from the options provided.

Aims - State the aim(s) of the project, and how this relates to the above background (e.g., it follows on from X, or fills a gap between Y and Z, or tests theory A in a new population B.)

Expected timeline - Provide a table or Gantt chart stating when you expect key milestones to be complete for each chapter, e.g., data collection, analysis, writing up. Discuss this timeline with your supervisor and ensure that you are working towards your personal target submission date (for BBSRC SWBio it is 3 years of full-time study not including the rotation projects, 4 years in total).

References - Provide a list of references in standard format (e.g., Harvard or Vancouver style). This does not count towards the word limit of the report.

Students must include a statement in the title page of your upgrade portfolio which confirms if and how you have used Generative AI in the creation and preparation of your work. Please refer to section 6.1 of chapter 9 in the TQA for what to include in your AI statement.

Presentation: In addition, for your viva you should prepare a short (5-10 minutes at most) PowerPoint presentation (of no more than 5 slides) that gives a brief overview of your project background and aims. This may include a list of proposed chapters.

The panel will be asked to comment of the quality of the written report, including on:

Context/background to the research
Originality and scope of project to contribute new knowledge
Level of critical analysis and understanding conveyed
Capacity of proposed methods to address the research questions
Literary standard and capacity to communicate effectively in English
Whether (future) work is of sufficient scope/standard to be publishable?

At the first attempt at upgrade, the following outcomes are available:

Pass;
Require completion of minor amendments within 2 months (or the pro-rata equivalent for part-time registration);
Refer for a second attempt within 3 months (or the pro-rata equivalent for part-time registration) and normally recommend initiation or progression of a case under 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement: Code of Good Practice' (see the Postgraduate Research Handbook, Chapter 15).

For students who require a second attempt at upgrade, the outcomes can be found in the Postgraduate Research Handbook, TQA Chapter 9, section 8.2.

c. Geography

Human Geography

The upgrade procedure should be started no later than 9 months after initial registration, 18 months for part-time students.

Stage 1:

The first stage of the upgrade procedure involves an Upgrade Report, a Presentation, and an Upgrade Viva.

Upgrade Report:

The Upgrade Report (maximum 8,000 words excluding references and appendices) should normally include the following:
- A brief description of the research problem, its background and intellectual significance.
- An account of the way in which the study will use or relate to existing scholarship and literature, and an outline of the theoretical or conceptual framework(s) which will be used for the study.
- A statement of the research aims, questions or hypotheses and an indication of the sort of argument(s) that will be made and the sort of evidence that will be used to reach any conclusions.
- An outline of the proposed methods of data collection, with reflections on key methodological issues and potential problems (such as ethical questions, the balance between different methodological approaches, or issues around access to data sources).
- An abstract of the thesis and a chapter plan.
- A timetable of the thesis as a whole. This should show the student’s work plan for the remaining period of study.
- A working bibliography should be included to show the sort of sources being used.
- Optional: any completed pieces of work that have already been written and which are likely to form substantive parts of the final thesis. These can be included as an Appendix.

Presentation:

In addition, all MPhil students are required to deliver a Presentation (20-minute presentation, 10 minutes for questions). This will usually take place before peers and the wider department, but it can also be conducted before members of a relevant Research Group.
This seminar is NOT part of the formal procedures of upgrade. However, the seminar is a compulsory part of your programme, providing a formative opportunity to tell the rest of Geography what you are doing, and giving you a chance to polish your presentation skills.

Upgrade Viva:

The Upgrade Viva will be conducted by a nominated Assessor, and chaired by the Director of Postgraduate Research (DPGR), or nominee. One or both of your supervisors are able to attend the Upgrade Viva as observers.

Stage 2:

The second stage is a ‘follow-up’ meeting around 10 months after the Upgrade Viva in the form of a discussion with members of the Upgrade Viva, or relevant nominees. The purpose of this meeting is to provide another formal point of contact, to check things are ‘on track’, and to provide an opportunity to reflect on any issues or successes that might have arisen since the Upgrade Viva. This follow-up meeting will normally take place around month 20 of your studies.

Physical Geography

Your upgrade procedure should be started no later than 9 months after initial registration (pro-rata for part-time students).

Upgrade report:

The upgrade report (min 5,000 and maximum 8,000 words excluding references and appendices) should normally include the following:

1. A description of the research problem, its scientific background and its relationship to existing state of the art.

This section sets the research into context, includes a justification of the research and identifies challenges and knowledge gaps but also includes how the proposed research will contribute to new scientific knowledge.
This section ends with a statement of the research aims, hypotheses or questions. This statement should be framed around identified challenges and knowledge gaps (max 30% of the text).

2. A detailed outline of the proposed methods of data collection and analysis demonstrating how these will address each of the research hypotheses/questions.

Where appropriate this should include details of the field or laboratory sampling strategy.
In the case of modelling work, it should refer in detail to models and data used for evaluation and parameterisation (if relevant) and similarly for remote sensing work.
It should also highlight relevant key methodological issues (practical or ethical), and include references to all methods.

3. A section on:

results obtained to date (you are expected to have some data already) and critical assessment of the limitations of the proposed methodology and identification of possible problems that may be encountered in years two and three and
anticipated results.

Sections 2 and 3 (~60% of the text) should be written as part of a thesis plan on which each scientific paper/chapter is separately discussed in terms of scientific hypotheses/questions, methodology and obtained & expected results.

4. Summary (5-10 % of text)

5. A work plan and timetable of the thesis as a whole.

This should show how the student’s work plan for the remaining period of study.

Seminar and viva voce:

In addition, all MPhil students are required to present a seminar (~15-20 minute presentation, with 10 minutes for questions) to peers and members of academic staff and attend a viva voce (max 70-90 minutes including time to fill in feedback forms by Upgrade panel members). Upgrade panel consists of a member of staff external to the supervisory team and the Director of Postgraduate Research (DPGR) or nominee.

The seminar is not part of the formal procedures of upgrade – students will not be scrutinised in terms of the quality of their presentation. However, the seminar is a compulsory part of the students’ programme, providing an opportunity to tell their peers and staff members in the department what they are doing, and giving them a chance to polish their presentation skills.

d. Earth and Environmental Science ( Cambourne School of Mines, Geography and Environmental Science, Environmental Mathematics)

The upgrade procedure is typically started no later than 9 months after initial registration for full time students (18 months for part-time students).

Stage 1:

The first stage of the upgrade procedure involves an Upgrade Report and an Upgrade Viva.

Upgrade Report:

The Upgrade Report (5,000 to 8,000 words maximum excluding references and appendices) should normally include the following:
- A brief description of the research problem, its background and intellectual significance (i.e. the introduction).
- An account of the way in which the study will use or relate to existing scholarship and literature, and an outline of the theoretical or conceptual framework(s) which will be used for the study (i.e. a high level literature review, where a detailed literature review can be included in the appendices if desired).
- A statement of the research aims, questions or hypotheses (i.e. state the novel aspects for the work) and an indication of the sort of argument(s) that will be made and the sort of evidence that will be used to reach any conclusions (with any decisions taken, or plans identified supported by the findings of the literature review).
- An outline of the proposed key methods, with reflections on key methodological issues and potential problems (e.g. ethical questions, the balance between different methodological approaches, issues around access to data sources, unknown aspects).
- An abstract of the thesis and a complete thesis chapter plan (i.e. the planned contents page which includes introduction, synthesis/discussion and conclusions chapters). This should be a description of the main or questions being answered or addressed within each chapter, a brief set of methods or approach proposed for each novel chapter and the status of any chapter already completed. The chapter foci need to reflect, or map to, the proposed research aims, questions or hypotheses.
- A timetable of the thesis as a whole. This should show the student’s work plan for the remaining period of study (i.e. a Gantt chart that has content for each chapter of the thesis).
- A working bibliography should be included to show the sort of sources being used (i.e. a reference list).
- Optional: any completed pieces of work that have already been written and which are likely to form substantive parts of the final thesis. These can be included as an Appendix and maybe referred to within the chapter templates or tables.

b) Upgrade Viva:

The Upgrade Viva will be conducted by a nominated Assessor (an internal examiner), and chaired by the Director of Postgraduate Research (DPGR) or their nominee. One or both of your supervisors are able to attend the Upgrade Viva as observers (and as observers they are not permitted to speak until after the viva has been completed). You will need to give a short (10 to 15 minute) presentation that introduces your research, the aims or foci, your planned thesis approach, and the current status of your work. This presentation will form the starting point for the panel to then ask questions about your work and upgrade report.

Stage 2:

The second stage is a ‘follow-up’ meeting around 10 months after the Upgrade Viva (e.g. at around month 20 of your studies) in the form of a discussion with members of the Upgrade Viva, or relevant nominees. The purpose of this meeting is to provide another formal point of contact, to check the work is ‘on track’, and to provide an opportunity to reflect on any issues or successes that might have occurred since the Upgrade Viva.

e. Engineering ( including Renewables)

Summary: In their first year of study, PhD students must complete an “upgrade report” and defend this successfully at a viva in order to continue on to the PhD. Full-time students must submit their upgrade report by the end of month 9 of their studies; the viva should occur no more than 6 weeks after this. (All deadlines are listed for full time-study; deadlines for part-time study will be adjusted accordingly – e.g., for half-time study the report should be submitted by month 18.)

Purpose and general expectations: Broadly, this procedure is intended to establish that the student is making sufficient progress towards a PhD, and to provide the student with external feedback on their progress and plans. It is also meant to give the student some experience of a viva, and to give them an early opportunity for feedback on their scientific writing. The expectation within Engineering is that the vast majority of students will be successfully “upgraded” to a PhD.

The upgrade procedure will take place at 9 months after initial registration, pro rata for part-time students, and will be completed by 12 months.

In brief, students will compile and submit a PhD upgrade report with a deadline of no later than 9 months (pro rata for part time students) following initial registration.

The 5,000 word (maximum) report should:

Outline the background to their research within the context of a review of the wider literature.
Identify the problem statement or research questions.
Identify the aims and objectives of the research.
Outline the methodological approaches currently used or under development.
Include original data and/or simulation/experimental results with clear discussion of findings within the context of the wider field.
Include a work plan (Gantt chart) for the remaining time of the project, providing dates for expected milestones, and tasks completion.
Include references being used.

Supervisor(s) should oversee the scientific content of the report by providing detailed comments to one version of the full report prior to submission.

The student will be required to attend an assessment panel meeting consisting of two independent assessors (to be nominated by the primary supervisor), and the primary supervisor (as an observer). The format of the meeting will consist of a 20 minutes presentation by the student followed by a Viva voce interview. The panel review will conclude with an independent and confidential discussion with the candidate.

f. Physics and Astronomy

i. Physics and Astronomy

Purpose and general expectations: Broadly, this procedure is intended to establish that the student is making sufficient progress towards a PhD, and to provide the student with external feedback on their progress and plans. It is also meant to give the student some experience of a viva, and to give them an early opportunity for feedback on their scientific writing. The expectation within Physics is that the vast majority of students will be successfully “upgraded” to a PhD.

Guidance on written upgrade report: There are no strict constraints on the format or length of the upgrade report. As a guideline, though, students should normally aim for about 5000 words in length, and the report should typically include:

A brief description of the research problem, describing its background and intellectual significance.
A brief review of relevant literature on this subject, including an account of the current state-of-the-art and how the proposed work will extend it. This material should be at the level of an introductory chapter in the PhD dissertation, which means that assessors would typically look for some critical analysis and synthesis of the primary literature rather than just a summary.
A description of the methodology that will be employed during the PhD. For example, if the thesis involves computational work, the report should summarise the numerical codes that will be employed; if it is laboratory-based, the report should describe the experimental setup.
Key objectives and an approximate timeline for these.
A summary of progress made so far. This can, where appropriate, include a brief description of training undertaken during the first year, as well as any experiments, simulations, or theoretical analyses already conducted. Students are not required to have publication-ready results in order to successfully “upgrade,” as this will vary between projects and fields.

The supervisor(s) should oversee the scientific content of the report by providing detailed comments to one version of the full report prior to submission.

Assessment procedure and panel composition: Within 6 weeks of submission of the upgrade report, the student will be required to attend an upgrade viva. The assessment panel will consist of two academics, neither of whom should be (or have been) a supervisor of the student. The panel composition will be at the discretion of the departmental Director of PGR, but will ordinarily consist of a) one assessor with specialist expertise in the subject (i.e., be a member of the same academic group as the student), nominated by the supervisor and b) the DPGR or their nominee (who may be any member of permanent academic staff in the Physics and Astronomy department). The supervisor may also attend the viva as an observer. (If the supervisor(s) attend, the upgrade panel should ask them to leave at some point, so that the student is given an opportunity to make any comments to the panel without their supervisor being present.)

The format of the viva is at the discretion of the assessors, but typically the student will be asked to give a brief oral summary of their report, which will be followed by an in-depth discussion with the panel.

Outcomes: The upgrade committee will (a) recommend that the student be upgraded to PhD candidacy (pass), (b) recommend that the student progress to PhD candidacy after completion of minor corrections to the report (pass with minor corrections), c) recommend that the student remain registered as an MPhil student, when there is evidence that the student is capable of submitting work for an MPhil degree within the appropriate timeline, or d) recommend initiation or progression of a case under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement: Code of Good Practice.’ The committee can, exceptionally, recommend that the student be allowed a second attempt at the upgrade, within three months of the initial attempt, following which the above outcomes are possible.

Relation to DTP assessment procedures:

For students funded by Doctoral Training Partnerships the upgrade deadline will generally coincide with the successful completion of the first year of the DTP programme. Reports submitted as part of the DTP programme (and broadly satisfying the requirements of the upgrade report and viva) may preclude the need for a further report and viva, at the DPGR’s discretion.

ii. Metamaterials

Summary: In their first year of study, PhD students must complete an “upgrade report” and defend this successfully at a viva in order to continue on to the PhD. Full-time students must submit their upgrade report at the end of month 9 of their studies; the viva should normally be held within one month of submission, and no later than 6 weeks after submission (note that these deadlines refer to full time-study, deadlines for part-time study will be adjusted accordingly).

Guidance on written upgrade report: There are no strict constraints on the format or length of the upgrade report. As a guideline though, students should normally aim for about 5000 words in length, and should try not to exceed 5000 words in length. The report should typically include:

A brief description of the research problem, describing its background and scientific or technological significance.
A brief review of relevant literature on this subject, including an account of the current state-of-the-art and how the proposed work will extend or complement said state-of-the-art. This material should be at the level of an introductory chapter in the PhD dissertation, which means that assessors would typically look for some critical analysis and synthesis of the primary literature rather than just a summary.
A description of the methodology that will be employed during the PhD. For example, if the thesis involves computational work, the report should summarise the numerical codes that will be employed; if it is laboratory-based, the report should describe the experimental techniques that will be used and/or developed.
Key project objectives and an approximate timeline for these.
A summary of progress made so far. This can, where appropriate, include a brief description of training undertaken during the first year, as well as any experiments, simulations, or theoretical analyses already conducted. Note that students are not required to have publication-ready results in order to successfully “upgrade,” as progress in this area will vary between projects and fields.

The supervisor(s) should oversee the scientific content and style of the report by providing detailed comments on a draft version of the full report prior to submission.

Assessment procedure and panel composition: Usually within one month, and not later than 6 weeks of submission of the upgrade report, the student will be required to attend an upgrade viva. The assessment panel will consist of two academics, neither of whom should be (or have been) a supervisor of the student. The panel composition will be at the discretion of the Discipline PGR (currently Dr Calum Williams), but will ordinarily consist of a) one assessor with specialist expertise in the subject (i.e., be a member of the same academic group as the student), nominated by the supervisor and b) the DPGR or their nominee (who will normally be a member of academic staff in the Physics or Engineering departments). The supervisor may also attend the viva as an observer, if so agreed by the student. (If the supervisor(s) attend, the upgrade panel should ask them to leave at some point, so that the student is given an opportunity to make any comments to the panel without their supervisor(s) being present.)

iii Natural Sciences

Panel composition

The DPGR has discretion in nominating the assessment panel. However, it will normally consist of:

- The DPGR, or usually a nominated deputy who may be any member of permanent academic staff with expertise in the broad area of the PhD project.

- Another independent assessor, who should also be a member of permanent academic staff and a subject expert in the area of the PhD project.

Content requirement

A report of maximum 5000 words should be submitted that includes:

A review of relevant research that places the research within a wider context.
The aims, objectives and main hypotheses under test.
The methodological approaches to be used or developed.
Where appropriate, original results and analysis with clear discussion of findings and their relationship to the literature.
An achievable work plan for the remaining time of the studentship, providing dates for expected completion of each thesis chapter.
Some contingency planning for future work.

Supervisor(s) should oversee the scientific content of the report by providing detailed comments on one version of the full report prior to submission.

The panel will review the report and conduct a viva voce for the student. Suggested format for the viva: the student will be asked to introduce their work briefly (either with or without slides as determined by the panel). The panel will then ask questions based on both the report and the wider context of the research.

g. Mathematics and Statistics

Timing: In their first year of study, students must complete an upgrade report and defend this successfully at a viva in order to continue on to PhD. Students must submit their upgrade report by the end of month 9 of their studies; the viva should occur no more than 6 weeks after this and the upgrade process should be completed within month 12.

Purpose of the upgrade: To assess the feasibility of the project plan and establish whether the student is making sufficient progress towards a PhD. It will also provide students with some experience of a viva, and with an early opportunity to obtain feedback on their scientific writing and presentation skills.

Guidance on written upgrade report: The report should be ~5000 words in length and typically include the following:

A description of the research problem, describing its broader significance.
A literature review, including an account of the current state-of-the-art and how the proposed work will extend it. This should involve critical analysis and synthesis of the primary literature, rather than just being a summary.
The key objectives of the work together with approximate timelines.
A description of the methodology that will be employed during the project. If the thesis involves computational work, the report should describe the numerical codes that will be employed.
A summary of progress made so far. This should include any theoretical analyses or simulations already conducted.

The supervisor(s) should oversee the scientific content of the report by providing detailed comments on a full report draft prior to submission. Students should provide their supervisor(s) with the draft report at least one week before the submission deadline to ensure adequate time for feedback.

Students are also expected to present to their research group before the viva takes place (this can be organised informally).

Assessment procedure and panel composition: Within 6 weeks of submission of the upgrade report, the student will be required to attend an upgrade viva. The assessment panel will consist of two academics with specialist expertise in the subject, neither of whom are a supervisor of the student. The assessors will be nominated by the supervisory team.

The format of the viva is at the discretion of the assessors, but typically the student will be asked to give a 15-minute presentation summarising their report – this will be followed by a 45-minute discussion with the panel.

Outcomes: The upgrade committee will either: (a) recommend that the student be upgraded to PhD candidacy (pass); (b) recommend that the student progress to PhD candidacy after completion of minor corrections to the report within 2 months (pass with minor corrections); c) Refer for a second attempt within 3 months and normally recommend intiation or progression of a case under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement: Code of Good Practice.

Further progress monitoring: At month 20, students will be required to submit a report detailing the progress made since the upgrade and attend a viva in which they will give a presentation summarising the report to their assessment panel – this will be followed by an in-depth discussion with the assessors. After the viva, the assessors will comment on the student’s research, research plans and development as an independent researcher. These comments will be considered at a Faculty progression meeting and if progress is deemed to be unsatisfactory, the Faculty may initiate the University’s procedures for managing unsatisfactory progress. At month 30, students will be required to give a final presentation to their assessment panel, in which they will (i) give an overview of the progress made since the second year viva and (ii) detail how much of the PhD work has been written up (in the form of a draft thesis or as publications). The panel will provide feedback to the student on their work, and in exceptional cases, may make recommendations that result in the Faculty initiating the University’s procedures for managing unsatisfactory progress.

Environmental Intelligence CDT

Summary: In Year 1 of the CDT programme, students must complete a "Thesis Proposal" which must be reviewed and approved by the CDT Directors to continue onto Year 2 of the programme. Full-time students must submit their Proposal at the end of the month 10 of their studies (July, Year 1). The Proposal must be resubmitted with additional documents as an "Upgrade Report" at the end of the month 18 of their studies (March, Year 2). A mini-viva should normally be held within one month of submission of the Report, and no later than 6 weeks after submission (note that these deadlines refer to the full time-study, deadlines for part-time study will be adjusted accordingly).

Purpose and general expectations: The upgrade is a Doctoral College requirement. Broadly, this procedure is intended to establish that the student is making sufficient progress towards a PhD, and to provide the student with external feedback on their progress and plans. It is also meant to give the student some experience of a viva, and to give them an early opportunity for feedback on their scientific/technical writing skills.

Content of the upgrade report:

The upgrade report should comprise

a. Title page

b. table of contents

c. A 1000-word (max) outline and brief description of the thesis structure and content. This will be the chapters of the academic papers in the proposed thesis (use of bullets is acceptable). 1000 words max. *If you plan to submit your thesis by academic papers, please state the target journals and include 300 words describing how the papers will be related to each other to support the final thesis disseration.

d. A 1000 word (max) outline of the progress of the research to date, including explanation of any necessary revisions to the initial Thesis Proposal.

e. An updated project plan or timeline (e.g Gantt chart) for completion of the thesis within the period of study.

f. The approved Thesis Proposal submitted at end of Y1.

Assessment procedure and panel composition (19 months): Usually within one month, and not later than 6 weeks of submission of the upgrade report, the student will be required to attend an upgrade viva. The assessment panel will consist of two academics, neither of whom should be (or have been) a supervisor of the student. The panel composition will be at the discretion of the Mathematics DPGR but will ordinarily consist of two assessors with specialist expertise in the subject who are nominated by the supervisor and approved by the Mathematics DPGR or their nominee. The supervisor may also attend the viva as a silent observer, if agreed by the student. If the supervisors attend, the upgrade panel should ask them to leave before the end, so that the student is given the opportunity to make any comments to the panel without the their supervisors being present. The format of the viva is at the discretion of the assessors, but typically the student will be asked to give a brief oral summary of their report, which will be followed by an in-depth discussion of the report, and of any relevant background topics, with the panel.

Outcomes: The upgrade committee will either: (a) recommend that the student be upgraded to PhD candidacy (pass); (b) recommend that the student progress to PhD candidacy after completion of minor corrections to the report within 2 months (pass with minor corrections); c) Refer for a second attempt within 3 months and normally recommend initiation or progression of a case under the Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement: Code of Good Practice.

h. Computer Science

Guidance on written upgrade report: The Upgrade Report (5,000 words maximum) should:

Introduce the background to the research within the context of a review of the literature.
Identify the aims and objectives of the research.
Describe the methodological approaches currently used or under development, and present the initial results if there are any.
Include a timetable of the thesis as a whole. This should show the student’s work plan for the remaining period of study.
Add References (N.B. not included in word count).

Assessment procedure and panel composition: Within 6 weeks of submission of the upgrade report, the student will be required to attend an upgrade viva. The panel will comprise an assessor, the Discipline Director of PGR (or their nominee chair). The student’s lead supervisor can attend as an observer. (If the supervisor(s) attend, the upgrade panel should ask them to leave at some point, so that the student is given an opportunity to make any comments to the panel without their supervisor being present.)

Outcomes: The upgrade committee will either: (a) recommend that the student be upgraded to PhD candidacy (pass); (b) recommend that the student progress to PhD candidacy after completion of minor corrections to the report within 2 months (pass with minor corrections); c) refer for a second attempt within 3 months and normally recommend initiation of a case under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement: Code of Good Practice.

i. Business School

Timing of Upgrade

The upgrade portfolio should be submitted to MyPGR by the end of the 9^th month after the student’s start date (adjusted pro-rata for part-time students), to allow transfer of registration to be completed not later than 12 months of full-time registration, or the pro-rata equivalent for part-time registration.

Upgrade Submission Requirements

Entrants registering before the 2019-20 academic year

Students are required to submit the following for consideration by the upgrade panel:

A completed and signed Training Needs Analysis Form for the current academic year with evidence that you have completed your Research Training Programme as agreed with your supervisor.
A 2-3000 word research report comprising of:
- A working title of the proposed thesis;
- A contents page for the thesis, with a paragraph to outline the contents of each chapter (including number of words submitted already and planned chapter word length);
- A statement that explains how your research is expected to be original and to be a distinct contribution to knowledge (either for each chapter or the proposed thesis as a whole);
- A draft timetable for completion of the thesis within your period of study.
A completed and written-up substantive piece of original research (i.e. a chapter or briefing paper), or substantial research-based draft chapter (depending on the final structure of the thesis). Very exceptionally a published note or paper which relates to, or forms part of the thesis may be considered, but this must be discussed with the discipline DPGR prior to submission.
An update on where you are in the process of applying for ethical approval if applicable to your topic, and consideration of risks and their mitigation that may affect your project, such as high financial costs, feasibility of data collection, travel required etc.

Entrants registering from the 2019-20 academic year

You should submit one or more pieces of written work in good presentational order as detailed in the sections below. The work required to meet this standard varies by department and is therefore detailed per department below. If you have any questions or concerns about the requirements for your department, you are encouraged to discuss with your supervisor and/or your Department Director of PGR.

All departments

All students, regardless of their department, must include the following in their upgrade portfolio submission:

Evidence that you have successfully completed your Research Training Programme and any modules as agreed with your supervisor. This is evidenced by a completed and signed Training Needs Analysis form for the current academic year;
An update on where you are in the process of applying for ethical approval if applicable to your topic, and consideration of risks and their mitigation that may affect your project, such as high financial costs, feasibility of data collection, travel required, etc.

Department specific upgrade requirements

Accounting

The submission is expected to include the following sections and should not exceed 7000 words (excluding references, appendices and timeline).

1. Brief introduction identifying the main research questions/ objectives as appropriate (please discuss with your supervisory team).

2. A critical literature review discussing prior relevant literature and which will help to identify research gaps. The presentation of the literature review will depend on how the final thesis will be present;

a) 'Paper-based' thesis; the literature review is completed for at least one of the papers.

b) 'Big Book' thesis: the literature review is related to part of the thesis.

3. Identification of research questions including development of hypotheses (if appropriate - please discuss with your supervisors) and discussion of the expected contribution to prior knowledge.

4. An outline and justification of your planned research design and method(s). Presentation of some empirical analysis is also expected for theses using quantitative research methods.

5. Indication of the research ideas or summary of the work to be developed in the remaining of the thesis and a draft timetable for completion of thesis within your period of study. It is intended that this draft timetable will be regularly reviewed and updated at the regular progress review meetings which take place each year.

Economics and Finance

The submission is expected to include the following sections (indicative 5000 words, excl. refs, appendices and timeline). Finance not to exceed 7000 words.

1. Identification of research question(s) and discussion of the expected contribution to prior knowledge.

2. A critical literature review pertaining to the main research topic (this may include specification of hypotheses)

3. Summary of research progress:

a) In the case of empirical thesis, methods and evidence (this may be pilot/in progress) pertaining to the first chapter/study;

b) In the case of a theoretical thesis, a model and at least one proposition;

4) Overview of remaining studies/chapters, including proposed design and methods if these have been planned (note: for some students, they may be tentative. The intention is to facilitate discussion and feedback on ideas that may be at different levels of development).

5. A timeline for remainder of work, including the preparation of manuscripts for publication. It is intended that this draft timetable will be regularly reviewed and updated at the regular progress review meetings which take place each year.

Management (including SITE)

The submission is expected to include the following sections (indicative 5000 word, excl. refs, appendices and timeline):

1. Identification of research aim and questions (or objectives) and discussion of the expected contribution to knowledge.

2. A literature review. The presentation of the literature review will depend on how the final thesis will be presented:

a) A 'big book' thesis: a critical literature review of the main research topic.

b) A 'paper-based' thesis: the literature review is completed for at least one of the papers.

3. An outline and justification of your planned research design and method(s).

4. A 1-page outline and brief description of the chapters in your thesis (use of bullets is acceptable).

5. A timetable for completion of thesis within your period of study. It is intended that this draft timetable will be reviewed and updated at the regular progress review meetings which take place each year.

Arranging and format of your Upgrade Viva

The student will be expected to arrange their upgrade viva by liaison with the panel and supervisor at the earliest convenient time. It is expected that the upgrade viva should normally take place within 4 weeks of the document submission, however at certain times of the year, staff leave and conference attendance can delay this.

j. BBSRC SWBio DTP - excluding CEC Students

CEC students funded by BBSRC SWBio DTP should please refer to section b. above.

For students funded under the BBSRC SWBio Doctoral Training Partnership, this upgrade deadline will coincide with the successful completion of the first year of the DTP programme.

Reports submitted as part of the BBSRC DTP programme will preclude the need for preparing any further report. The student would then only be required to submit:

Their SWBio RP1 & RP2 reports plus any available marksheets from their supervisors.
Their SWBio scoping document and GANTT chart plan for the remainder of their PhD.

Your PGR Support Team will send you an email with the information for your upgrade.